First of all You Should Know About Corporate Income Tax

First of all You Should Know About Corporate Income Tax

The current tax system imposed on corporations by the U.S. government is at best, a biased system; for corporations that have a net profit, taxes on those profits amount to a full one-third. So, if you're doingbusiness as a standard "C" corporation, and you do manage to make a profit, you're going to owe Uncle Sam about 30%. That's an amazing figure, so let's look at some of the behind-the-scenes information that will help to enlighten us as to the "why" so much tax should be levied.

The first thing you must understand when dealing with the corporate tax structure, is that for the most part, many large corporations do not pay the complete 30% tax that would typically be levied against an individual if they were in the same situation; corporate accountants and the sheer process by which corporations must report their income, expenses, deductions, depreciation, dividends, and any other financial transactions allows for huge deductions that typically offset any tax due. This concept is a major topic of discussion today, as we attempt to better control and regulate corporate accountability for their finances.

When you have large corporations that are obviously reporting earnings andpaying dividends, yet they pay no tax, you should be tipped off to the fact that there is a problem. How to fix that problem, may be another subject altogether.

The latest proposals have been to eliminate the corporate tax altogether. This would shift the tax burden to the individuals of this country; that is a tremendous shift from the post-war era of the Second World War, when corporations and individuals shared the responsibility almost equally. Thanks to the lobbying done by corporate lobbyists over the last thirty years, we've finally reached the point of no return. The latest proposals have come from within the halls of Congress to eliminate corporate tax, and let the average taxpayer assume all the responsibility.

In case some of you have noticed, we as individual citizens are losing more and more of our take home pay each year, to taxes of some kind. Medicare, social security, and income taxes take a larger portion of our dispensable income each year. This would take a step closer to making even more of our income the property of the tax man.

What about this seems unfair? As pointed out by the individuals who are in favor of eliminating corporate tax, it would encourage capital investment and job growth in this country and that is absolutely true, it theoretically would do just that. But since when does theory actually work in practice? Communism works in theory. Many individuals believe it is simply another way to provide tax-free income to CEOs, and Board Members. The latest scandals such as Enron and HealthSouth have shown this country real hard evidence of the corporate abuses that are rampant in this country, and so far uncontrolled. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has taken great steps toward greater accountability on the part of the corporate environment, but elimination of corporate tax is simply a legal way to avoid paying the tax.

The most interesting information I have found in researching this topic, is the fact that the media has paid little or no attention to these issues, thus allowing the purported growth of the corporate lobbyists to go virtually unnoticed by the American public. While mush emphasis has been placed on the Social Security issues we face, nothing has been mentioned about the loss of revenue we've experienced over the last thirty to forty years because of the decreased taxation of corporate America.

Where have tax laws and law makers turned to accommodate the decrease in corporate tax? There have been increases in individual tax liability and there has been an increase in sales tax. The sales tax affects the poorer of thiscountry as a percentage of income, than the rich. The loss of revenue from the corporate structure of this country have led to starved educational systems, cities and counties that are revenue poor, and a economic system for the poor that only becomes harder to sustain.

When you factor in the ability of the wealthy and the corporate entities of thiscountry to hire brilliant accountants that find loopholes in the tax system, and relieve their clients entirely of their tax liability, you cannot believe that the current system operates for the people, by the people, can you?

Source: Free Articles

Read more »

Simplifying the Most Difficult Senior Planning Decision: For Your Family Home

Simplifying the Most Difficult Senior Planning Decision: For Your Family Home

As Father Time marches on, the question of what to do with the home becomes a greater concern. In some cases, ruminating on the alternatives can dominate one's thinking. If a person is aware of the various options and chooses a path that makes the most sense, peace of mind can often be the result.

Studies have shown that 90% of married couples and 62% of single persons reach retirement owning their own homes. Coupled with non-monetary considerations of whether to stay or sell, one major objective is how to convert the equity in the home to an income.

In some cases, selling the home is the most attractive option. However, remaining in the home could be simpler and less stressful. Many people are too quick to jump to the "sell" option because they are not aware of all the options that would allow staying in the home and extracting the equity as well.

Weigh each of the following options against selling before throwing in the mental towel and listing the home.

An AARP study done in 2000 showed that more than 90% of seniors wanted to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Almost 82% still wanted to stay even if they needed care.

That is a very loud vote. Therefore, I would recommend looking at long term care insurance that either only provides home care or a more comprehensive plan that includes home care. Many seniors balk at the topic of long term care because they figure they will never go to the "home." Statistically, 50% of them are right. What many fail to realize is that at some point almost everyone will need some kind of help. Home care benefits may provide the needed assistance while allowing the person to remain in their home.

As seniors age, the upkeep of the home may become overbearing. The lawn still needs cutting, the bushes trimmed and the flower beds kept free of weeds. The inside needs dusting; the carpet needs vacuuming and the windows need washing. Eventually, in many people's minds, these become reasons to sell.

I would invite you to put a pencil to this. Look at hiring someone to come in and clean. Hire a lawn maintenance company or the teen-ager down the street trying to pay for his car. Having these things taken care of in this manner is a lot less expensive than moving to a retirement home.

If the home is too big, close some rooms off. If it cost too much to heat or cool, seal the vents in un-used rooms.

Sometimes it may make sense (both for the senior and the child) for one of the children to move in and serve as a caretaker, cook, lawn-cutter and/or pool boy/girl.

There are several ways to get the equity out of the home, while continuing to live in the home.

First, the home could be re-financed. Mortgage interest rates today are low. Properly invested, the funds released could cover the new mortgage payments. If not, the difference could be less expensive than rent. Depending on the person's age, putting a part of the proceeds into an immediate annuitymay even cover the mortgage payment and then some.

If the person has a retirement plan that mandates required minimum distributions starting at age 70 1/2, the interest deduction on the new mortgage could be a welcome offset to the RMDs, which must be included in taxable income.

For large estates subject to estate taxes, placing the home in a Qualified Personal Residence Trust (QPRT) can potentially remove the home, and any appreciation from the date of the transfer into the trust, from the taxable estate. Proper trust drafting can also provide for the housing needs of the survivor of a married couple and, ultimately, leave the home to the children.

Selling the home to the children is another option. By structuring the sale and lease back according to the rules, the $250,000 single person or $500,000 married couple capital gains tax exclusion could apply. Here, again, the parents would continue to live in the home and pay rent to the children. This removes the home from the taxable estate as well.

A gift-leaseback is an alternative. The value of the home will use up part (or all) of the lifetime unified credit. Consult a tax attorney if the value of the home is large and this option is one of the ones on the table.

If the homeowner(s) are age 62 or older, a reverse mortgage may be a viable option. The National Council on Aging calculates there are 13.2 million seniors who could qualify for a reverse mortgage of $20,000 or more. The average would be $72,000.

Reverse mortgages can reduce or eliminate the children's inheritance. Today, there are Federal Rules for reverse mortgages and about 90% are federally insured. Fees can be high and will differ among lenders. Shop around.

Prior to making the decision to stay in the home or sell, each of these options should be part of the discussion among the senior, their children and financial advisors.

Source: Free Articles

Read more »

How To Perform A Sizable Charitable Donation From Your Personal IRA - Tax Free!

How To Perform A Sizable Charitable Donation From Your Personal IRA - Tax Free!

If you are over 70 1/2 years old, want to make a gift for a special charitable project, but your only liquid asset is your IRA, I have good news for you.

On August 17, 2006, thePension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 2006) was signed into law. This nearly 1,000 page piece of legislation marked the most sweeping changes to thepension arena in 30 years.

Let me give you two common examples that contain problems faced by seniors solved by PPA 2006-

Roger and Claire are retired. Roger spent his working career in the aerospace industry. He was more than well compensated and over the yearsaccumulated a very large 401(k) plan. When he retired, he rolled his 401(k) into an IRA. Other than their home, the IRA is far and away their biggest asset.

For years, Roger and Claire have been supporters of the Humane Society. Their local chapter is building an entire new wing on to their kennels. Roger and Claire would love to make a significant donation-somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000 to $100,000.

Bill and Diane both worked during their entire careers. Mary taught 6th grade for 40 years. Bill was a career military officer. After his retirement, he spent another 20 years working in the private sector. Like Roger, Bill has a large IRA.

When Bill turned 70 1/2, he was required to start taking the minimum required distributions each year from his IRA. But Bill and Diane don't need the income; their other retirement income sources are more than adequate. Nevertheless, Bill must take these RMDs and pay tax on them as income.

Bill and Diane have been active in their church all their married life. Their church just bought a new organ. The church did not pay cash for the organ; the majority of it was financed. Bill and Diane would like to pay off the organ.

Both Roger and Claire and Bill and Diane are warm-hearted people. But, prior to the passage of PPA 2006, their generosity could have been thwarted by several things-

1. In both cases, their principal liquid asset was an IRA. Neither couple had other assets from which to make a gift.

2. If the large sums were withdrawn from their IRAs, they would be subject to ordinary income tax.

3. If given to a charity, rules which limit the amount that could be deducted as a charitable contribution would have to be followed. This means that they may still have to pay tax on a portion of their IRA withdrawals.

But thanks to provisions in PPA 2006, Roger and Claire can make their gift to the Humane Society and Bill and Diane can pay off their church's new organ using money from their IRAs and not pay any tax on the withdrawals. But they have to follow the rules-

1. First, you must be at least 70 1/2.

2. You can give up to $100,000.

3. This only applies to 2006 and 2007.

4. You can't withdraw the money from your IRA and then give it to your charitable cause. The transfer must be made directly from the custodian of the IRA to the charity.

5. These gifts, called IRA charitable rollovers, count towards your required minimum distribution for the year.

6. IRA charitable rollovers are not permitted for gifts to donor advised funds and supporting organizations. However, there are some exceptions that applyto funds held by community foundations: scholarship, field of interest, and designated funds qualify. So the first step is to contact your intended cause to see how they are classified and whether or not the law allows an IRA charitable rollover gift.

7. The gift must be a pure gift. In other words, there can't be any personal benefit strings attached like tickets to an event.

8. You don't have to report the IRA charitable rollover as income.

9. However, you don't get a charitable deduction for your gift. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

This new law is a real winner. In these two examples, the Humane Society is able to build new kennels and a church pays off an organ they thought they were going to have to finance. The donors were able to make it happen despite the fact that the only real asset they had was an IRA.

I do not dispense tax advice. It is imperative that you consult with your tax advisor and the charity to make sure it is qualified and that the gift is made in the proper manner.

Source: Free Articles

Read more »

Your First Opportunity Cost and Your Long Term Care Decision

Your First Opportunity Cost and Your Long Term Care Decision

As Father Time marches on, the question of what to do with the home becomes a greater concern. In some cases, ruminating on the alternatives can dominate one's thinking. If a person is aware of the various options and chooses a path that makes the most sense, peace of mind can often be the result.

Studies have shown that 90% of married couples and 62% of single persons reach retirement owning their own homes. Coupled with non-monetary considerations of whether to stay or sell, one major objective is how to convert the equity in the home to an income.

In some cases, selling the home is the most attractive option. However, remaining in the home could be simpler and less stressful. Many people are too quick to jump to the "sell" option because they are not aware of all the options that would allow staying in the home and extracting the equity as well.

Weigh each of the following options against selling before throwing in the mental towel and listing the home.

An AARP study done in 2000 showed that more than 90% of seniors wanted to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Almost 82% still wanted to stay even if they needed care.

That is a very loud vote. Therefore, I would recommend looking at long term care insurance that either only provides home care or a more comprehensive plan that includes home care. Many seniors balk at the topic of long term care because they figure they will never go to the "home." Statistically, 50% of them are right. What many fail to realize is that at some point almost everyone will need some kind of help. Home care benefits may provide the needed assistance while allowing the person to remain in their home.

As seniors age, the upkeep of the home may become overbearing. The lawn still needs cutting, the bushes trimmed and the flower beds kept free of weeds. The inside needs dusting; the carpet needs vacuuming and the windows need washing. Eventually, in many people's minds, these become reasons to sell.

I would invite you to put a pencil to this. Look at hiring someone to come in and clean. Hire a lawn maintenance company or the teen-ager down the street trying to pay for his car. Having these things taken care of in this manner is a lot less expensive than moving to a retirement home.

If the home is too big, close some rooms off. If it cost too much to heat or cool, seal the vents in un-used rooms.

Sometimes it may make sense (both for the senior and the child) for one of the children to move in and serve as a caretaker, cook, lawn-cutter and/or pool boy/girl.

There are several ways to get the equity out of the home, while continuing to live in the home.

First, the home could be re-financed. Mortgage interest rates today are low. Properly invested, the funds released could cover the new mortgage payments. If not, the difference could be less expensive than rent. Depending on the person's age, putting a part of the proceeds into an immediate annuitymay even cover the mortgage payment and then some.

If the person has a retirement plan that mandates required minimum distributions starting at age 70 1/2, the interest deduction on the new mortgage could be a welcome offset to the RMDs, which must be included in taxable income.

For large estates subject to estate taxes, placing the home in a Qualified Personal Residence Trust (QPRT) can potentially remove the home, and any appreciation from the date of the transfer into the trust, from the taxable estate. Proper trust drafting can also provide for the housing needs of the survivor of a married couple and, ultimately, leave the home to the children.

Selling the home to the children is another option. By structuring the sale and lease back according to the rules, the $250,000 single person or $500,000married couple capital gains tax exclusion could apply. Here, again, the parents would continue to live in the home and pay rent to the children. This removes the home from the taxable estate as well.

A gift-leaseback is an alternative. The value of the home will use up part (or all) of the lifetime unified credit. Consult a tax attorney if the value of the home is large and this option is one of the ones on the table.

If the homeowner(s) are age 62 or older, a reverse mortgage may be a viable option. The National Council on Aging calculates there are 13.2 million seniors who could qualify for a reverse mortgage of $20,000 or more. The average would be $72,000.

Reverse mortgages can reduce or eliminate the children's inheritance. Today, there are Federal Rules for reverse mortgages and about 90% are federally insured. Fees can be high and will differ among lenders. Shop around.

Prior to making the decision to stay in the home or sell, each of these options should be part of the discussion among the senior, their children and financial advisors.

Source: Free Articles

Read more »